Superior M9 IQ

[efftee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

This was cropped and jpeg-ed, but otherwise zero post done. There was no ambient light in the vicinity; it was literally dark everywhere else except for the spotlights and signage. You can download the original file here for detailed scrutiny, if you like.

 

Frankly, I am impressed. In response to the recent threads on this forum about the 'minor' improvements of the M9, I seriously doubt my (already sold) M8 would be able to produce the same results or something close to it, really. I've not come to appreciate the full benefits of FF; as an amateur, perhaps I wouldn't. That said, at ISO1000, f1.4, 1/30s, handheld, the noise level, resolution, etc, the IQ of the M9 is, IMO, head and shoulder above the M8.

 

I've also shown this to friends using Canon and Nikon gears who were, despite the CA at the obvious areas, similarly impressed. The superiority may be subtle but fully appreciable. In summary, I am glad I upgraded. My only grouse with the M9 is, like the consummate seductress, I wished I had time enough to play with it night and day dammit!

[Nikkor AIS]

As long as your happy. Personally the CA this shot is brutal and my Nikkor 28 1.4 Af-D/Nikkor 58 1.2 Nocturnal and the D3 never exibits this purple ting in simular lighting/shooting conditions. Im not trying to discourage you, but since you brought up the Nikon reference I felt it needed to be said. Come to thing about I never get this type of CA with my Noctilux and film Leica either. So where is the superior IQ that I should be seeing? I know spending all that money you want to hold over us, but what are getting that Im not?

 

Gregory

[jaapv]

If you mean the purple fringing in the trees in the centre etc, that is not CA. The topic has been discussed extensively in the processing forum, and can be dealt with in postprocessing. the main culprit is the RAW converter. The easiest way is to use the sliders provided in the RAW converters.

[arthury]

Here's one I saw which Jaap might be referring to ..

 

http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/digital-post-processing-forum/123407-m9-lr-2-7-pre-intel.html

[jaapv]

Actually, searching "purple fringing" yields 144 threads.

[bill]

...popcorn, anyone?

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not from a white bag please - it will have purple edges.

[efftee]

As long as your happy. Personally the CA this shot is brutal and my Nikkor 28 1.4 Af-D/Nikkor 58 1.2 Nocturnal and the D3 never exibits this purple ting in simular lighting/shooting conditions. Im not trying to discourage you, but since you brought up the Nikon reference I felt it needed to be said. Come to thing about I never get this type of CA with my Noctilux and film Leica either. So where is the superior IQ that I should be seeing? I know spending all that money you want to hold over us, but what are getting that Im not?

 

Gregory

 

Hi Greg, I was referring to the superior IQ over M8, which I personally have had an experience with. As for the Nikon and Canon reference, I was merely conveying what was expressed.

[jaapv]

I think the appreciation would have been about the clarity of the shot.

Imo this one would benefit from C1 5pro to control the fringe and bring out the last detail.

[efftee]

If you mean the purple fringing in the trees in the centre etc, that is not CA. The topic has been discussed extensively in the processing forum, and can be dealt with in postprocessing. the main culprit is the RAW converter. The easiest way is to use the sliders provided in the RAW converters.

 

Yeah, that's what I meant. The purple fringing. I wanted to post an image without any post-processing so illustrate a better IQ sans touch-up. I've been using Camera Raw with the M9. I do have Capture One, Lightroom and Aperture but I've not experimented with the different converters yet.

[noah_addis]

So your $7000 camera can shoot at ISO 1000 and it looks good on screen.

 

I'm impressed:eek:

 

Since you mentioned Nikon, try making a print and comparing it to one at ISO 1000 from a D700 and a decent lens like the zeiss 35/2 or even the cheapo Nikkor AIS 50/1.8.

 

Now, just for fun, compare it to a D700 print at ISO 3200.

 

I did, and I ended up selling my two M9s.

 

The M9 certainly is better than the M8 in low light. At low ISO the difference is less clear. In large prints I noticed much less difference than I expected between the two cameras. The full-frame sensor is the main improvement in my opinion, though admittedly it's a big improvement.

[efftee]

I think the appreciation would have been about the clarity of the shot.

Imo this one would benefit from C1 5pro to control the fringe and bring out the last detail.

 

Perhaps my expression was not technically correct, nonetheless, I'm basically impressed by the overall quality actually. You do think that C1 is better than LR and Aperture? Does it make a difference between the C1 and C1 Pro? Thanks.

[jaapv]

The main advantage of C1pro is the better colour controls for me. You can download both versions and try out which one suits you best.

[efftee]

So your $7000 camera can shoot at ISO 1000 and it looks good on screen.

 

I'm impressed:eek:

 

Since you mentioned Nikon, try making a print and comparing it to one at ISO 1000 from a D700 and a decent lens like the zeiss 35/2 or even the cheapo Nikkor AIS 50/1.8.

 

Now, just for fun, compare it to a D700 print at ISO 3200.

 

I did, and I ended up selling my two M9s.

 

The M9 certainly is better than the M8 in low light. At low ISO the difference is less clear. In large prints I noticed much less difference than I expected between the two cameras. The full-frame sensor is the main improvement in my opinion, though admittedly it's a big improvement.

 

Oh dear, the worms from the can is flying out fast! May I just say again that the Canon and Nikon remark was conveyed as they were expressed by friends using those gear. They're amateurs, like I am, and perhaps nowhere close to the proficiency that you or others on this forum are. Maybe. I wouldn't know. It was not intended to slight the Canon and Nikon brands or users/owners. I apologize if that offended anyone.

[plasticman]

Plenty of side-by-side tests have been done. Some of them not completely and utterly subjective.

FWIW I downloaded the dng and wasn't impressed.

[efftee]

The main advantage of C1pro is the better colour controls for me. You can download both versions and try out which one suits you best.

 

I have C1, not Pro, v4. If the Raw converter is the same for both, I wouldn't get the Pro version as I don't really use the controls.

[efftee]

Plenty of side-by-side tests have been done. Some of them not completely and utterly subjective.

FWIW I downloaded the dng and wasn't impressed.

 

You think that the M8 could produce similar results? That is the basis of my comparison.

[d2mini]

Oh dear, the worms from the can is flying out fast! May I just say again that the Canon and Nikon remark was conveyed as they were expressed by friends using those gear. They're amateurs, like I am, and perhaps nowhere close to the proficiency that you or others on this forum are. Maybe. I wouldn't know. It was not intended to slight the Canon and Nikon brands or users/owners. I apologize if that offended anyone.

 

FWIW, i'm a nikon user (d700) and was in no way offended.

Different tools for different jobs.

I think some people just got up on the wrong side of the bed today. Or it's been a long day... depending on geographical location.

 

I'm glad you are impressed with you M9, as am I.

[efftee]

FWIW, i'm a nikon user (d700) and was in no way offended.

Different tools for different jobs.

I think some people just got up on the wrong side of the bed today. Or it's been a long day... depending on geographical location.

 

I'm glad you are impressed with you M9, as am I.

 

Thanks! I was about to list my M9 on eBay!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[jaapv]

Oh dear, the worms from the can is flying out fast! May I just say again that the Canon and Nikon remark was conveyed as they were expressed by friends using those gear. They're amateurs, like I am, and perhaps nowhere close to the proficiency that you or others on this forum are. Maybe. I wouldn't know. It was not intended to slight the Canon and Nikon brands or users/owners. I apologize if that offended anyone.

Well, the title was unintentionally a bit provocative. The judgement of image quality, like Mani says, it quite subjective as it depends on which aspect you look at. Even the processing of DNGs provided is not always helpful. I found the M9 a bit disappointing initially, until I had developed a few dozen DNGs and got my workflow set up properly and after that I discovered the advantages over the M8. Other brands - too different to compare really meaningfully to me -different lenses different sensor types, different converters, different workflows, different strong and weak points, etc. I just go with what I like in print.,